Violent Revolution almost always fails.

People like to get fired up and say Revolution! But they always forget those names. It never works out. People forget that Che got Castro into power, and say what you will about him (His son declares he should be in prison), he wasn't exactly a fantastic leader of the people (essentially enslaving the population, killed women and children, religious repression, etc.). He and Castro then proceeded to murder thousands of "War Criminals" and opponents often without a fair trail.

So I say stop doing revolutions and repeating old history...But can we ever do that?

Tragedy is inevitable.

Revolution is the class struggle that leads to political change. Let us take the example of the Arab Spring Revolution. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, the dictator for over 30 years was recently over-thrown in favour of a democratic government headed by Muhammad Morsi. All the tragic bloodshed and endless fighting had stopped and a new era had dawned. But people eventually realized that nothing had changed. Morsi's true colours were revealed as he made modifications to the government to favour himself. The tragedy repeats itself. After a revolution, the first thing that has to happen is that the government has to restore order to the chaos. It is not as though one wave of a wand can end a revolution and everyone lives happily ever after. It takes time for things to settle and all the widows, orphans and homeless people and all the injured protesters are still in the hospital waiting for change. The government has to change this situation. Sometimes they are successful, sometimes they are not. Another example of a tragic revolution that failed miserably and left a trail of chaos and sadness was the establishment of the Weimar Government after the Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany abdicated because of the numerous revolts by the people. From the start, the new government faed opposition from both the communists and the kaiser's old advisors who limited its power. The major catastrophe was the hyperinflation caused by the government printing money to pay the war debts it owned the allies. People who had saved enough in the bank to buy a house found out that all their money was rendered worthless during the hyperinflation and would not even buy one cup of coffee. People lost faith in the government because of that.The final straw was the Great Depression, and after that, Hitler rose to power, sparking a catastrophic chain of events that not only destroyed Germany but many other countries as well. And another example of a revolution that is still continuing but tragedy is inevitable at its conclusion is the ongoing war in Syria. Basshar Al Asad's forces are putting up a brave stance against the opposition army and rebels. USA and Britain were supplying money to the rebels but now they are not sure who the rebels are anymore. Al Qaida has already secretly sent some of its militariants to support the rebels, and the Taliban have set up a base in Syria already. There is a saying that if you do not know who is good or bad, look at the person's actions. Recently, there was a video circulating around Youtube that showed a rebel eating the heart of a Pro-Basshar Al Asad soldier. Another video shows rebels shooting masked people supposedly Basshar Al-Asad soldiers. But nobody knows who are under the masks. They may be women and children as well. Should these guys win, who knows what they would do to Syria? Yet another revolution is destined to end in tragedy.

Look at Vietnam.

If you look at the Republic of Vietnam, you'll see that a revolution can be quite successful. While the Indochina Conflict wasn't necessarily a revolution in general, it began with the revolutionary spark to overthrow French rule in the region. As we see, it was successful enough to not only deter the French, but also the United States, China, and Cambodia. They remain a successful nation to this day.

There are non-violent revolutions.

I will assume that the loss of life is necessary for a tragedy and also that a forced change in governmental powers is necessary for a revolution. A non-violent revolution constitutes a change in government with no loss of life. Therefore no, a revolution does not always end in tragedy.

IF all were tragedies, surely we would have learned our lesson by now?

Hearing words like revolution, rebellion and uprisings project images of bloody battles, mass hysteria and soldiers with tanks thundering down on angry civillians but it is not always so. In fact, bloody rebelions often end up in failure like the French revolution.

Revolution is not confined by fighting through physical means. The People Power of the Philippines was succesful in ousting a dictator, twice. Aung Suu Kyi of Burma was arrested multiple times yet she kept their revolution peaceful.

It depends. The gains and the losses need to be weighed at the end of every revolution. Revolution will always be a tragedy because people will always die, even in peaceful ones. (Think civil rights in America.) Yet, if you are American, do you consider the American Revolution a "tragedy", besides all that were killed during the process?